Sen. Brown’s Support of DADT and START leave America a Sitting Duck

I wish advocates of repeal of DADT like Sen. Brown would explain how they plan on replacing the 32% of Marines and members of our special forces that indicated in the Pentagon survey that they would leave the service. Maybe students will be lining up at Harvard to join the ROTC when it’s allowed back on campus or the advocates of repeal have received commitments from thousands of homosexuals, Unitarians and atheists to make good the losses, now that those knuckle dragging evangelicals have been shown the door. I don’t believe they have the slightest clue how to keep the combat units and our military capabilities from dissolving before our eyes while engaged in two wars. They’re shooting first and asking questions later during this lame duck session of Congress. Essentially, Sen. Brown is voting to break the offensive capabilities of our military.

If Sen. Brown is comfortable breaking America’s sword, he at least believes in preserving its shield right? Not if he continues to support the ratification of New START he doesn’t. Despite the protestations of the Obama administration the treaty precludes America from working on missile defense. The Russians insisted language be included in the preamble to the treaty stating exactly that and despite many senators’ requests to review the negotiating record the Obama administration has refused to release it. What is Obama hiding? With Hugo Chavez signing an agreement with Iran to place medium range missiles capable of hitting the U.S. in Venezuela this isn’t an academic exercise.

The simple fact is that neither of these issues need to be resolved in the lame duck session of Congress and shouldn’t be, they’re simply too important to rush. As much as advocates of repeal of DADT would like us to believe that the Senate must act before the courts do, it just isn’t so. The ninth circuit hasn’t even heard arguments yet and then the case would be appealed to the Supreme Court. Any decision imposed by the courts is at least a year away. What’s driving the push for repeal at this reckless pace is politics, specifically the heavy losses Democrats suffered in the midterm elections. The Democrats’ political “shellacking” is also driving the headlong push to ratify New START. They’re more afraid of putting the votes off to make sure they get them right than they are with getting them right for the American people. Politics should never trump national security, period.

Sen. Brown should enjoy the praise of the liberals he’s enabling, but he should understand that they won’t be with him in 2012. Just ask Charlie Baker how effective being to the left of President Obama helped attract liberals to his gubernatorial campaign. Hint, he got thumped because he alienated conservatives in the bargain.

About Paul Breau

  • JoeTS

    I wish advocates of repeal of DADT like Sen. Brown would explain how they plan on replacing the 32% of Marines and members of our special forces that indicated in the Pentagon survey that they would leave the service.


    They won’t.  It’s a survey.  Do you seriously think that 32% of our special forces and marines are going to give up service to their country and their careers because the gay guys who serve alongside them go from being gay and everyone knows but nobody talks about it to gay and everyone knows but you can talk about it if you want but wouldn’t anyways because gays are icky?  

    BTW, I didn’t move out of the country when Obama won, did you?

  • MerrimackMan

    I think in the long run it probably doesn’t really change much. I have no problems with DADT, its supposed to make sexual orientation a non-factor in the military, repealing it seems unnecessary to me. That being said, if the military were to be “Open”, 1) I just don’t see Gays lining up in droves to join the Military, and 2) I don’t believe that the patriotic men and women that serve today will quit because there are gays with them on the battlefield. I mean, no one quits their jobs at work just because they have gay coworkers. Plus, I don’t believe there will be any more confrontation between gay and straight individuals living together in the Barracks as there are between gay and straight students living in dorms together at College. So, non-issue if you ask me. Brown will succeed in Massachusetts with this vote, its more of a political sign of acceptance of gay people than anything. A majority of Massachusetts residents probably would support repeal of DADT.

    START is another issue. In fact, this perhaps the first position that Sen. Brown has taken that really boggles my mind. There is no political nor ideological reasoning I can see for why he would vote for this bill. Its not like ANYBODY in Massachusetts really cares if it gets passed. The Nuclear Freeze folks would never vote for him anyway. On an ideological basis, I don’t see how this supports America being a stronger and safer country, which should be the center objective of Conservative-Republican leadership on foreign policy/military issues. I really do hope Brown sees the light, or at least tries to make serious changes to the START treaty before supporting it. Missile Defense and Port Screening are the ways in which we neutralize the threat of Nuclear-armed enemies of the United States. Let’s not weakening Missile Defense at any level.

  • What is he thinking, or not thinking would be more precise.DADT wrong to repeal  IMO, and the START vote..I can’t wait to hear his explanation on that one.None of these important issues should have been taken up in this lame duck session of Congress.


    Update: McCain’s amendment failed 39-57. Based on the amendment voting, we can get a good idea of where the dedicated Republican opposition to ratification is. Scott Brown, Bob Corker, Lindsey Graham, John McCain, and even Joe Lieberman, Lisa Murkowski, Olympia Snowe, and Johnny Isakson voted yes on the amendment. That means that four Senators previously considered to be more or less in support of ratification just voted for a measure that would have scuttled the treaty. Obviously, the treaty has no chance if the supporters of the amendment go on to oppose ratification.

  • ftt1975

    Shame on you Senator Brown! I expect to be betrayed by John Kerry and Nikki Tsongas who really don’t respect the Military. But you! As a former Army Ranger I feel betrayed by Congress for voting to allow gays to serve in the Army.  This will destroy the combat effectiveness of the Army.  Yes Special Forces, Rangers and most Combat Arms Soldiers will not accept this and will leave the Army if they cannot keep Homosexuals out of their units by force. Soft skill Soldiers like Senator Benedict Arnold Brown won’t really care that much. But they are not the ones who win WARS the trigger pullers do. As a PROTEST I WILL NO FLY MY FLAG UPSIDEDOWN! I ask all my fellow Veterans and those who support the Armed Force to Join me until this act of betrayal is reversed.  As for you Senator Brown on Election day I will write in “Benedict Arnold” and Vote for him.

  • Scott Brown has turned his back on those who served this country, gays included. Repealing DADT will only open Pandora’s Box.

    DADT protected gays from being prosecuted under Punitive Articles 77 through 134 of the UCMJ. Scott Brown should know this. He is a JAG Officer.

    The Articles 77 through 134 of the UCMJ are known as the “punitive articles,” — that is, specific offenses which, if violated, can result in punishment by court-martial.

    The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) is the bedrock of military law. The UCMJ is a federal law, enacted by Congress and not the President.

    The law requires the Commander-in-Chief (The President of the United States) to implement the provisions of the UCMJ. The President does this via an executive order known as the “Manual for Court Martial” (MCM).

    Congress did not change the punitive articles so now gays who violate the punitive articles will be prosecuted and if found guilty, they will be sent to prison instead of being discharged.

    The President and Pentagon must first certify that lifting the ban won’t hurt troops’ ability to fight. After that, the military will undergo a 60-day wait period before any changes are made.

    I doubt that this will happen. Field Commanders will not be able to guarantee thus certify that lifting the ban won’t hurt the troops ability to fight.

    Come this January Congress will have the opportunity to reverse DADT and it should be reversed for the Good of the Service and the Security of the Country.

  • Right down the list Brown is proving to be just another lying politician, and, at his core, he is much farther to the left than I had realized.

    Arching above all of the rationalization he is offering for his votes on DADT and START….he steadfastly refuses to address the fact that he has gone back on his pledge to not vote for any of this crud until after a budget has been passed.  (BTW, a continuing resolution is not a budget).

    To pull this crap in a lame duck session violates the spirit of the 20th Amendment, as well (thus goes his oath to preserve protect and defend, as well)

    I would not have lifted a finger to get him elected if I knew he was going to be just another Olympia Snow.

    As it is, I worked pretty hard on his behalf….and I intend to redouble those efforts to get him unelected in 2012.

    Who can we find to challenge him in a primary?

    Who can we get to run as an independent?